ungroup_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While annotations already mark this as destructive, the description adds valuable behavior: it explains that non-group nodes are ignored rather than causing errors, and it discloses the return shape { ok, affected } with affected being the promoted child ids. This goes beyond the annotation requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No filler, and every clause adds essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, input expectations, edge-case behavior (non-group nodes skipped), and response structure. Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes nodeIds as 'Group node ids to ungroup' (100% coverage). The description reinforces this and adds the behavioral nuance that non-group nodes are simply skipped, which clarifies what happens with invalid/inapplicable entries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool ungroups GROUP nodes by id and distinguishes itself by specifying that non-group nodes are skipped. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like group_nodes, reparent_nodes, and move_nodes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on usage: pass group node ids, and non-group nodes are skipped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is unambiguous and sufficient for this simple operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.